Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Dec;37(6):351-367.
doi: 10.3393/ac.2021.00836.0119. Epub 2021 Nov 17.

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Affiliations
Review

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi et al. Ann Coloproctol. 2021 Dec.

Abstract

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

Keywords: Intersphincteric resection; Low rectal cancer; Robotic surgical procedures; Surgical technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) study [21] flow diagram.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Trocar positioning for the da Vinci Si (A), Xi (B), and Single-Port (SP) as described by Toh and Kim [45] and Cheong et al. [46]. MCL, midclavicular line. Yellow circle, da Vinci 12-mm port; red circle, 12-mm standard port; blue circle, da Vinci 8-mm port; green circle, 5-mm standard port (assistant); white circle, 25-mm access for SP placement.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schiessel R, Karner-Hanusch J, Herbst F, Teleky B, Wunderlich M. Intersphincteric resection for low rectal tumours. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1376–8. - PubMed
    1. Saito N, Sugito M, Ito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Yoneyama Y, et al. Oncologic outcome of intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2009;33:1750–6. - PubMed
    1. Okamura R, Hida K, Yamaguchi T, Akagi T, Konishi T, Yamamoto M, et al. Local control of sphincter-preserving procedures and abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced low rectal cancer: propensity score matched analysis. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;1:199–207. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tsukamoto S, Miyake M, Shida D, Ochiai H, Yamada K, Kanemitsu Y. Intersphincteric resection has similar long-term oncologic outcomes compared with abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer without preoperative therapy: results of propensity score analyses. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:1035–42. - PubMed
    1. Peng B, Lu J, Wu Z, Li G, Wei F, Cao J, et al. Intersphincteric resection versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Innov. 2020;27:392–401. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources